Calls for Federal Funding Cuts to Ohio State University Intensify Following “Hidden Camera” DEI Exposé
Ohio State University (OSU) is facing a firestorm of criticism and escalating demands for the revocation of its federal funding after a new investigation by Accuracy in Media (AIM) alleged the university is circumventing state laws to continue Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The controversy centers on footage of administrator Melissa Newhouse, who appears to admit that DEI programs were merely “renamed” to include “privileged Whites” in order to bypass legislative bans.
Deep Search: Inside the Allegations
The undercover video, released this week by the conservative watchdog group Accuracy in Media, purportedly features Melissa Newhouse, an administrator within OSU’s College of Medicine. In the recording, Newhouse describes how the university adapted to Ohio’s strict anti-DEI legislation by rebranding specific centers and initiatives rather than dismantling them.
“We had to change signs and centers… changed them to common so that whites are there,” Newhouse is heard saying in the video. She further explains that the strategy involved bringing “the people with the privilege” into these spaces to ensure compliance on paper while maintaining the underlying programming. “My son would still learn DEI… as part of his curriculum,” she added, suggesting that the core mission of these initiatives remains intact despite the legal prohibitions.
The footage has reignited fury among conservative lawmakers and activists who argue that the university is engaging in “shadow DEI” practices—technically adhering to the letter of the law while violating its spirit.
Objections: Denial and “AI” Defense
When confronted by AIM investigators about the footage, Newhouse vehemently denied the allegations, claiming the video evidence was fabricated. “That’s not me. That’s not my voice,” she stated, insisting the recording was the result of artificial intelligence manipulation. “That must be AI… I didn’t say that.”
Ohio State University has maintained a firm stance that it is in full compliance with state and federal laws. In previous statements regarding DEI restructuring, university leadership has emphasized that changes to office titles and functions—such as the transition of the Office of Institutional Equity to the “Office of Civil Rights Compliance”—were executed to align strictly with legal mandates. Supporters of the university argue that broadening support centers to include all students, regardless of background, is exactly what the law required, and that describing this as “renaming” is a mischaracterization of necessary compliance measures.
Background: The Legal Battle Over DEI in Ohio
This latest controversy lands in the wake of Ohio Senate Bill 83 and the broader “Advance Ohio Higher Education Act” (Senate Bill 1), signed by Governor Mike DeWine in March 2025. The legislation was designed to eliminate mandatory DEI training, prohibit “litmus tests” for hiring based on ideology, and ensure intellectual diversity on public campuses.
In response to the law, OSU announced the closure of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the Center for Belonging and Social Change earlier this year. However, critics like Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) have long expressed skepticism about whether these administrative shifts represented genuine change. Vance has previously written to university leadership questioning whether DEI principles were simply being “embedded” into other departments.
The AIM report feeds directly into these suspicions, providing ammunition for federal lawmakers who control the purse strings. With OSU receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research grants annually, the threat of a funding freeze—echoing similar pauses initiated by the Trump administration in early 2025—poses a significant financial risk to the institution.
